From Wanfang - Mesencephalic astrocyte-derived neurotrophic factor( MANF) protein is being studied in the development of liver fibrosis and clinical significance in the patients with chronic hepatitis B virus. A publication was just released in Asia. I believe you need to be literate in Chinese or have a translator to read this publication. The abstract alone doesn't help explain the details. The expression of MANF in this study has been directly correlated to opportunistic research and improvement on addressing liver fibrosis and Hep B, there is strong clinical significance between MANF levels in patients with or without, therefore helping scientists enhance productivity against the diseases.
Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 8133 doi:10.1038/srep08133 Published 02/25 February 2015
These results suggest an inhibitory role for MANF in inflammatory cell proliferation, which support the notion that MANF plays an inhibitory role in the activation of NF-κB target genes.
Mesencephalic astrocyte-derived neurotrophic factor (MANF; also known as ARMET) belongs to the fourth family of neurotrophic factors. MANF protects neurons and alleviates the Parkinson's disease-like symptoms in rat 6-hydroxydopamine model. In non-neuronal cells, MANF has also been identified as a secretion protein induced by ER stress that protects against various forms of ER stress-induced damage17, 18, 19, 20. In this study, we detected MANF expression in the peripheral white blood cells (PWBC) isolated from the patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and from rabbits with antigen-induced arthritis (AIA). The role of MANF involved in inflammation was also investigated by using primarily cultured fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLS). Our data demonstrated that MANF functioned as an inhibitor of the NF-κB signaling pathway by blocking the binding of p65 to the promoter of its target genes. Consistently, MANF suppressed the expressions of NF-κB dependent genes. MANF knockdown enhanced the proliferation of inflammatory synoviocytes. Therefore, this study suggests that MANF may be a novel negative regulator of inflammation by interacting with p65.
Janssen Sets A Course To Intercept Type 1 Diabetes Together With JDRF. Joseph Hedrick is with Janssen and very close to Saarma and JDRF with work, actually he's close to all investigators on the MANF project. You can do the digging and see correlations. He is focused on proteins to stop cell death, they are into root causation, not necessarily reducing symptoms. This will be huge for Amarantus. I feel this is more epic than Lympro, you have millions of people in dire need, many in their youth losing limbs, vision, dying. I would suspect an agreement will arise in the next month with MANF. I'm not undermining ALZ, just the market for Diabetes is far more advantageous since it affects young and old.
bsteiner: Let me help you since you seem like you're in pain over something with me. You reply to people often on here with your thoughts or conjecture.
-Did I, or did I not simply reply to people with my opinion, or my thoughts?
- Am I not allowed to share information I perceive helpful on a message board not owned by you.
-Are you allowed to place me on ignore if I ruined your day?
-Better yet, I gave advanced notice of JDRF, Maart Sarma and a few other key things before they came. Sorry, but true. Many people on here can validate that.
-I never claim to be perfect, I will gladly accept and admit a mistake in info, even when it's a rumor and I can't control that.
-I almost always clearly state that what I know is probable, not imminent.
-I don't threaten or menace people on the MB,
-I don't hesitate to fault Gerald when I think he is wrong.
-I was one of the few arguing AMBS would go it alone on Lympro for a long time, much to the dismay of most of the MB.
-I don't have people following my word on here, there's nice people that enjoy chatting, many of whom I speak with offline from the MB explaining different things.
When you really check facts and don't take cheap shots, you sometimes see that you might not be so perfect, too, you also might not be conceded calling out how many shares you have next time like it gives you the right to be better than anyone else. Best of luck.
shekels: Yes, I am generalizing the .40c part, I really have no idea what they would get, I do believe more than 100m, in my basic math, I would see 200-400m in reality for Lympro and double that for the whole diagnostic package, just my thoughts. The diagnostic division is separated legally already. They wouldn't sell AMBS in part or whole. I wish I read the blog earlier, it's very imminent through his words. He wrote that specifically for his large investors. Safe harbor is #$%$, any CEO is liable for even the slightest slips in those key words such as, "potential, may, can, might", etc. Gerald was sending a stern and aggressive message, in fairness to the common investor as well.
mutai: I honestly don't know, I would imagine they would spin the whole diagnostic division off, however, I can see a big player coming in and only wanting Lympro at a discount. It depends on a lot. I am playing off Gerald's valuation stabs at immediate and longer term Lympro sales, I don't think anyone knows concrete numbers quite yet. He's not just making forward looking statements, he's moved to cover his rear, clearly institutions and large investors are mad, or aren't coming in due to his liability, which is the diagnostic division. Don't get me wrong, Lympro will move this stock and financially protect the company, but nothing massive. I can see a 40-90c pps, but not into the dollars without MANF progressing, just my opinion.
Sorry to even waste your time, read his blog. Lympro is gone. He basically just said so much by indicating that it is damaging the brand with investors. Consider it sold in months. He's a good man to realize this and I hope he does unlock your rewards for investing and being so patient.
"As described in some detail in previous communications, we are committed to providing a return of capital to our shareholders via a potential spin-out of our Amarantus Diagnostics division. We believe it is important to separate our groundbreaking therapeutics, regenerative medicine and discovery platforms from the diagnostics business, in large part, because the metrics to evaluate these different businesses will create difficulties in the marketplace to unlock the value from each division: Revenue-focused investors who specialize in diagnostics will view the expenses associated with our therapeutics division as a major distraction and drain on valuable resources"
Ok, went to his blog, read his words: "As a CEO evaluating our portfolio, and managing the risk vs. the reward of each category, I strongly believe in both our therapeutics and diagnostics businesses. However, the core competency of Amarantus’ team resides in the therapeutics business, where we believe we have the potential to eventually outpace some of the largest biotechnology companies in the industry if MANF ultimately lives up to the high expectations we have for it.".
Clearly Lympro is going....going...gone. This was built to sell and to gain the critical mass necessary for MANF.
He did in fact indicate something about investment bankers in the blog as well, more specifically.
There's a lot of rumors surfacing that a buyout of the diagnostics division is forthcoming out of the last meeting. This isn't in message boards, I think these are researchers and scientists buying today on the news. Pharma players talk and things leak out fast on smaller companies. I haven't heard any names or distinction between types of companies, I heard two partners say Bain Capital's biotech leader was at the last conference with Gerald, I know they are aggressively getting into bio. I noticed Gerald indicated something about investment bankers (blog) looking at the diagnostic shortly after hearing that. They have the structure together now to sell the diagnostics division, fully packaged and prepared. I would think in order for the other endeavors to survive, they will take a healthy price for it. Think about it this way, a sale would be no less than 150m and probably no more than 1.5b based on his words with valuation.
grkierk: I laugh with my post, it's always misleading. There's way too many variables in this world to totally understand the exact science used to come up with numbers. Variables start flying very fast when they run comparisons and add the type of disease and type of test, or this one vs that one, or subsets. All I am trying to say, it's not so easy to always understand. There's different ways to help lead people to conclusions, some will find it helpful, some are more math minded and may use a different path to get there. This isn't black and white in any realm. Read about sens vs spec (an entire science of its own) on Wiki and seek out all of the tables at the bottom, that's a fraction of what a normal calculation out of the lab looks like, better yet, explain it to a jury...You probably get my point. There's scientists and then there's mathematicians, generally they work together, but aren't one.
ethep: I am using bare numbers people are throwing around to make it a little easier. I could care less if it's 10, 20, or 99, just to clarify. You're correct, I keep trying to clarify and I don't think people know that the LP-001 study is a possible basis for the release of Lympro to the field. AMBS can use whichever results they want to enter an agreement and execute the diagnostic. This is why it becomes so confusing. We literally work with math teams to dissect this side of the testing spectrum, I think someone already called out the Bayes error rate as well. This has always been complex to explain to people, in the most simple terms, AMBS did very good overall. Gerald needs to communicate that word to the street clearly, not Jason N.
Thanks for the feedback, what I say in my own mind doesn't always make it easy to read. I found a UTI study of 1,000 women. This may be the best way for people to understand, you can use like math and change the figures out:
1,000 Participants - Be careful with the wording when calculating....
Sensitivity of 71% means that only 213 (71% of 300) women with UTI would have a positive test result. The remaining 87 would have a negative test result. Specificity of 85% means that 595 (85% of 700) women without UTI would have a negative test result. The remaining 105 would have a positive test result. Thus, of 318 positive test results, only 213 would be correct (213/318 = 67% PPV); a positive test result makes the diagnosis of UTI more likely than not but not certain. There would also be 682 negative tests, of which 595 are correct (595/682 = 87% NPV), making the diagnosis of UTI much less likely but still possible; 13% of patients with a negative test result would actually have a UTI.
Here's another good way to look at it from Wiki, note again that sensitivity is what validates the disease out of specificity, so 94% clear on whether the 65% have it or not is incredible on that end:
Sensitivity and specificity are statistical measures of the performance of a binary classification test, also known in statistics as classification function. Sensitivity (also called the true positive rate, or the recall rate in some fields) measures the proportion of actual positives which are correctly identified as such (e.g., the percentage of sick people who are correctly identified as having the condition), and is complementary to the false negative rate. Specificity (sometimes called the true negative rate) measures the proportion of negatives which are correctly identified as such (e.g., the percentage of healthy people who are correctly identified as not having the condition), and is complementary to the false positive rate.
I have seen a lot of confusion on sensitivity vs specificity. I wanted to help some in simple terms.
Specificity calls out the disease itself in the raw. 65% of the patients have the disease, this means 65/100 tested have it at this point, as far as we know. There are variables, those are worth worrying about since the published variables are so low.
Sensitivity rules out the doubt. 94% sensitivity shows 9.4 of 10 people are sure the test is right and confirms the disease. Or look at it this way, if a test is highly sensitive with a negative result, you can be nearly certain that you don’t have disease. If it's highly sensitive with a positive specificity result, you probably have ALZ.
So why does it matter at the end of the day. Specificity is good in LP-002. It's not great, it's good. Keep in mind that's all we're looking for. Proof beyond guessing and symptoms is great, that's the win for AMBS. Keep in mind that they can use whatever data they want, they can still use LP-001 if they choose for marketing. LP-002 added variables for a reason, like dementia. This is a protective factor for AMBS or any company like them to cover tracks and rule yourself out as a risk. They faired very well, read SEC filings to see that they still have the ball in their court with which results they use.
The good news, if 35% of the people tested negative for ALZ, the test being 94% sensitive would mean they are almost beyond a reasonable doubt willing to say ALZ doesn't exist in that patient. To the contrary, for the 65% testing positive, they are 94% willing to say they have ALZ. It's not easy to identify it in the markers, this is the challenge, thus why sensitivity is critical, that 94% means the world.
Good or bad for the company? It's actually very good in the big picture and an attractive test for any doctor. Many you use today have less than 60% specificity and less than 90% sensitivity, you just never asked!
It's not that interesting, most people in the trading side don't know the name changed to EMA, even scientists in the US, yes, even though years have passed and I have had to explain what the EMA is. Pick a side, I don't intend to win, you obviously knew what I was speaking of.
There's news in a post of mine today, many hours ago, backtrack. It's new data on Renal, Heart and HIV in publications that just rolled out and were expanded upon. It also indicates AMBS can chose 001 vs 002 data in their Lympro rollout per the SEC filing, also Gerald's increase in salary with the Q1 NASDAQ uplist. There's a lot hitting the pavement. Best of luck to all.
Did you also see in a filing that: Upon the Company’s “uplisting” to NASDAQ in Q1 of 2015, Gerald's salary will increase about 112k annually. They clearly filed that knowing the registration would be approved. The uplisting happens...period. It indicates registration was filed and they wouldn't know it was approved without meeting, hence the 8k filing. Lympro is listed in a private poster as a spinoff again for the meetings this week, very strange. It starts with "Lympo, 2015 Spinoff" on poster.
It looks like someone already filed for a deletion, but if you dig hard, Lympro has data out there from 2015. It's not under ICON, but there is a current study showing collaborative results are going to be chosen based on AMBS' decision under 1 or 2 (read recent PR). Clearly they will show incredible sensitivity and specificity under this model.
Look at ESS data and understand better what's happening with that and the FDA, very incredible now that the PR struck this am.
Also, look for EMEA approval soon on MANF for indications in the US. This is going to be an epic week for the company and shareholders.
Some newer studies, some of these require purchase, but if you're an investor, it is a moot point and you won't mind:
MANF for heart:
"We showed that MANF protects cardiac myocytes and mouse hearts from ischemia/reperfusion injury." MANF is being found as an ER Stress related protection link in cardio-related issues.
MANF for Renal diseases:
You can also find a new study protecting Renal Carcinoma
MANF related to HIV, also see:
"Transcriptional Profile of HIV-induced Nuclear Translocation of Amyloid β in Brain Endothelial Cells"
The obtained data indicate that HIV-induced Aβ nuclear uptake affects several cellular stress-related pathways relevant for HIV-induced Aβ pathology.